Anyone have experience with the Nikon Monarch BDC reticle at long range?

J

JRodko

Regular
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Location
Regina, SK
I have been thinking about moving away from Vortex and I have been liking the clarity of Nikon glass. I'm a little bit unsure on the actual usefulness of the open bubble or circle BDC design.

I generally take shots under 300 yards but on occasion where I am shooting targets out to 500 or 600 it seems like those lower bubble will be filled with the entire mule deer sized target.

Has anyone used these scopes past 300 yards? What is your opinion of the reticle. I'd like to get a 4-16x42 version, though I'm not sure where to find the FFP versions for purchase.

Thanks
 
I could never warm up to those BDC circles. In fact I do not like BDC anything anymore. They make a poor ruler. Nikon claims you can use the top or bottom of the circle as an aiming point as well but to me it seems goofy as our eyes will want to go to the center of the circle naturally.
 
I currently have gotten fairly used to the Vortex BDC which are much smaller has marks. I guess I still prefer to hold over than muck with turrets.
 
I like them for plinking or hunting small game. I hate them for anything involving a target or long range.

For long range go with a quality BDC reticle with fine graduation.

Candocad.
 
I have a cross section of Nikon Duplex and BDC reticles. The scopes I use also have the yardage on the turrets. The BDC work well for me out to 300yds. Past there I prefer to use the turrets. A Mildot version might be an option for you. Depends on your personal preference. Veteran old school sniper instructors tell their students to learn how to use Duplex style reticle. One of the videos I watched stressed: "Learn your scope, learn your round characteristics. Learn to shoot properly. You don't need all the "bells & whistles".
Of course everyone will have their own preferences on what works for them.
 
JRodko said:
I currently have gotten fairly used to the Vortex BDC which are much smaller has marks. I guess I still prefer to hold over than muck with turrets.
Click to expand...

I use Vortex BDC's currently. They are ok. I find I use cheat sheets anyway (or my phone app) as the objects might be at 375, or 535 yards anyway. Depends on how close you need to be. With a mil or moa based non BDC style reticle, you can use your cheat sheets marked at your 2,3,4,5,600 yard intervals and be more precise. Helps if the reticle has some number indicators on it to make it quicker to count. At close to medium rages on big game, both my 270 (200 yard zero ) and my 6.5 Creed (100 yard zero) are close enough that if the animal is at that exact distance up to 500 it works out close.
If you shoot out farther, you can have trouble with wind hold offs, ( I had trouble with my Viper ) since the horizontal steps in the reticle are way too far apart. So you either use Kentucky or dial the wind.
 
My buddy has a few Buckmaster scopes with the BDC reticle.

They don’t work very well. We were shooting random metal targets at 270yards. His rifle is a 18.5” barrel mossberg 308. The issue was the target was between his aiming circles.He didn’t have a definite point of aim.
 
Lead hammer said:
I use Vortex BDC's currently. They are ok. I find I use cheat sheets anyway (or my phone app) as the objects might be at 375, or 535 yards anyway. Depends on how close you need to be. With a mil or moa based non BDC style reticle, you can use your cheat sheets marked at your 2,3,4,5,600 yard intervals and be more precise. Helps if the reticle has some number indicators on it to make it quicker to count. At close to medium rages on big game, both my 270 (200 yard zero ) and my 6.5 Creed (100 yard zero) are close enough that if the animal is at that exact distance up to 500 it works out close.
If you shoot out farther, you can have trouble with wind hold offs, ( I had trouble with my Viper ) since the horizontal steps in the reticle are way too far apart. So you either use Kentucky or dial the wind.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that response. It's good to know. I'm thinking it'll be full-sized gong style targets of game ranging in size from coyotes to elk. I think from a practicality standpoint you can tweak the BDC to your rifle a bit by changing the 0.

What I'm more concerned with is the size of the target vs dots at say 500 yards and how that affects clarity and shot placement. Will it cover the entire target?
 
coleman1495 said:
My buddy has a few Buckmaster scopes with the BDC reticle.

They don’t work very well. We were shooting random metal targets at 270yards. His rifle is a 18.5” barrel mossberg 308. The issue was the target was between his aiming circles.He didn’t have a definite point of aim.
Click to expand...

Thank you coleman1495. I have often found that with any BDC reticle. I think your friend will have much better results if he were to play around with Nikon's ballistic calculator and his scopes zero. I know a lot of people don't go through the effort but I usually have to do it. You might find that by changed your zero by 50 or even 25 yards will make the bubbles match much better. At least in theory, ha!
 
JRodko said:
Thanks jiffx2781. Anything specific about your experience with them?
Click to expand...

Other than the main crosshair where you have your zero set you have no NATURAL point of aim. Nikon claims that you can use the top and bottom lines of the circles for a more precise aiming point but lets be realistic for a minute...

The circles naturally cause your eyes to focus in the center AND to pull what you're aiming at (somewhat) into the center of the circle. All the bdc circles are unnecessarily large and many times the precise point on what you intend to shoot gets lost. It causes too much variation for precise shot placement. As the range increases the target keeps getting smaller within the circles which only increases the margin for error.

If you choose to use the top and bottom of the circles for more precise aiming points (like Nikon claims you can) it becomes a complicated clutter as there now becomes twice as many aiming points that your eyes DON'T naturally attract to.

If you just want to shoot minute of barn door at various ranges using the bdc reticle than it will work just fine. But if you want to shoot with any degree of precision you will absolutely hate the reticle.

Nothing about using the reticle feels NATURAL.

Just my .02 worth.
 
jiffx2781 said:
Other than the main crosshair where you have your zero set you have no NATURAL point of aim. Nikon claims that you can use the top and bottom lines of the circles for a more precise aiming point but lets be realistic for a minute...

The circles naturally cause your eyes to focus in the center AND to pull what you're aiming at (somewhat) into the center of the circle. All the bdc circles are unnecessarily large and many times the precise point on what you intend to shoot gets lost. It causes too much variation for precise shot placement. As the range increases the target keeps getting smaller within the circles which only increases the margin for error.

If you choose to use the top and bottom of the circles for more precise aiming points (like Nikon claims you can) it becomes a complicated clutter as there now becomes twice as many aiming points that your eyes DON'T naturally attract to.

If you just want to shoot minute of barn door at various ranges using the bdc reticle than it will work just fine. But if you want to shoot with any degree of precision you will absolutely hate the reticle.

Nothing about using the reticle feels NATURAL.

Just my .02 worth.
Click to expand...


This is exactly the kind of answer I was looking for. Thank you very much.. I'll reconsider my choices.

What is your favourite BDC reticle?
 
JRodko said:
This is exactly the kind of answer I was looking for. Thank you very much.. I'll reconsider my choices.

What is your favourite BDC reticle?
Click to expand...

Honestly, if you're wanting to go with a bdc reticle stick to something simple like the Vortex bdc. Simple and clean bdc hashmarks. No complication, no clutter, your eyes will naturally attract to a more precise aiming point. Plus you get simple, easy to calculate, 2moa windage hashmarks.

You still have to do a bit of work to see exactly what yardage the bdc hashmarks end up being for with your particular rifle/caliber/ammo combination. This is the same for every bdc reticle though.

Reticle-Vortex-Dead-Hold-BDC-closeup_ts.jpg
 
jiffx2781 said:
Honestly, if you're wanting to go with a bdc reticle stick to something simple like the Vortex bdc. Simple and clean bdc hashmarks. No complication, no clutter, your eyes will naturally attract to a more precise aiming point. Plus you get simple, easy to calculate, 2moa windage hashmarks.

You still have to do a bit of work to see exactly what yardage the bdc hashmarks end up being for with your particular rifle/caliber/ammo combination. This is the same for every bdc reticle though.

Reticle-Vortex-Dead-Hold-BDC-closeup_ts.jpg
Click to expand...

Thanks. Part of the reason I was hoping the Nikon would workout is because their BDC calculator is quite good. Far better than the Vortex application.
 
JRodko said:
Thanks. Part of the reason I was hoping the Nikon would workout is because their BDC calculator is quite good. Far better than the Vortex application.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about the ballistic apps. However I've found that when it comes to the reticles simpler is always better when you're shooting.

Just my .02
 
jiffx2781 said:
I agree with you about the ballistic apps. However I've found that when it comes to the reticles simpler is always better when you're shooting.

Just my .02
Click to expand...

Yeah. I'm actually inclined to agree with you. The best thing to do is get out there and shoot a bunch of rounds so you know for sure. I was just hoping for a little head start.
 
JRodko said:
Thank you coleman1495. I have often found that with any BDC reticle. I think your friend will have much better results if he were to play around with Nikon's ballistic calculator and his scopes zero. I know a lot of people don't go through the effort but I usually have to do it. You might find that by changed your zero by 50 or even 25 yards will make the bubbles match much better. At least in theory, ha!
Click to expand...

Yes I think if you knew ahead of time the distances you were shooting it might be okay. We didn’t know exactly how far the shooting distance was going to be until we were setup on location. If your shooting location is constant,that would be a huge improvement.It might be okay ( but never great) if you shot at the same ranges.
 
jiffx2781 said:
Other than the main crosshair where you have your zero set you have no NATURAL point of aim. Nikon claims that you can use the top and bottom lines of the circles for a more precise aiming point but lets be realistic for a minute...

The circles naturally cause your eyes to focus in the center AND to pull what you're aiming at (somewhat) into the center of the circle. All the bdc circles are unnecessarily large and many times the precise point on what you intend to shoot gets lost. It causes too much variation for precise shot placement. As the range increases the target keeps getting smaller within the circles which only increases the margin for error.

If you choose to use the top and bottom of the circles for more precise aiming points (like Nikon claims you can) it becomes a complicated clutter as there now becomes twice as many aiming points that your eyes DON'T naturally attract to.

If you just want to shoot minute of barn door at various ranges using the bdc reticle than it will work just fine. But if you want to shoot with any degree of precision you will absolutely hate the reticle.

Nothing about using the reticle feels NATURAL.

Just my .02 worth.
Click to expand...

One more thing jiffx2781,

What kind of shooting were you doing? Were you shooting at fairly precise targets at 800 yards, or were you shooting animal sized targets at 400 yards? That would also help a lot.
 
JRodko said:
One more thing jiffx2781,

What kind of shooting were you doing? Were you shooting at fairly precise targets at 800 yards, or were you shooting animal sized targets at 400 yards? That would also help a lot.
Click to expand...

My scope I used was a Monarch 4-16. I tried shooting paper out to max 500 and using the bdc reticle I thought it totally sucked. However hitting steel plates at that range where precise accuracy wasn't as important was doable. (never tried shooting that scope any farther)

It currently sits on a coyote rifle but I wouldn't even attempt to shoot at a coyote using anything past the first bdc circle (which was fairly close to 300yrds). The next circle down was hitting about 425yrds and at that range the coyote would almost get lost in the circle.

If you're sitting at a bench shooting targets I guess one could use the top and bottom of the circles for a more precise aiming point. But when using it in the field, when you don't have much time to mentally process things, more aiming points equals more yardages to remember, more clutter, and more points of aim that your eyes don't naturally attract to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom